Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Scott Riccitello: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 20:55, 11 January 2015

Dominic Scott Riccitello

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was speedy deleted once under this name and 5 times under the title Dominic Riccitello. There is some incidental coverage due to a tweet of his about a Miley Cyrus/Kelly Clarkson spat but beyond that nothing resembling meaningful coverage in multiple reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 04:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: some minor coverage for a tweet and a following on social media: nothing worthy of a Wikipedia article. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has a following and articles written. I've seen more people with pages that aren't half as interesting. If you search his name the "who" comes up - this page is helpful. 172.56.17.158 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both of your arguments are among those listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions - WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:OTHERSTUFF. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article was put up for speedy deletion and denied. His relation to those articles isn't incidental as those articles wouldn't exist without his original comment. Has other articles and a print magazine source that suffice. TV | talk 20:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America|list of United States of America-related deletion discussions]]. [[User talk:Becky Sayles|'''<span style="color:#0092d6; background:#bae9ff"><sup>&nbsp;B </sup><small>E </small><sub>C </sub><small>K </small><sup>Y </sup> <sub>S </sub><small>A </small><sup>Y L </sup><small>E </small><sub>S&nbsp;</sub></span>''']] 04:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)</small>
 * '''Delete''': some minor coverage for a tweet and a following on social media: nothing worthy of a Wikipedia article.  [[User:G S Palmer|G S Palmer]] <small>([[User talk:G S Palmer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/G S Palmer|contribs]])</small> 15:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
-:'''Keep''': Has a following and articles written. I've seen more people with pages that aren't half as interesting. If you search his name the "who" comes up - this page is helpful. [[Special:Contributions/172.56.17.158|172.56.17.158]] ([[User talk:172.56.17.158|talk]]) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''': Has a following and articles written. I've seen more people with pages that aren't half as interesting. If you search his name the "who" comes up - this page is helpful. [[Special:Contributions/172.56.17.158|172.56.17.158]] ([[User talk:172.56.17.158|talk]]) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 :* Both of your arguments are among those listed at [[Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions]] - [[WP:ITSUSEFUL]] and [[WP:OTHERSTUFF]].  [[User:G S Palmer|G S Palmer]] <small>([[User talk:G S Palmer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/G S Palmer|contribs]])</small> 20:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''': The article was put up for speedy deletion and denied. His relation to those articles isn't incidental as those articles wouldn't exist without his original comment. Has other articles and a print magazine source that suffice. '''[[User:TV|TV]]''' | [[User talk:TV|''talk'']] 20:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)